Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) thinks McAfee's claim that it's providing information too late for software security firms to protect customers using the new Windows 64-bit Vista is "inaccurate and inflammatory."
But I'm putting my bets on McAfee's opinion for this one. Vista was originally designed to lock out security firms from the core or "kernel" of its 64-bit Vista system. Security firms complained to all that would listen, including the European Commission, that without access to this kernel they could not fully protect computers from intrusions. Microsoft, of course, didn't mind that. They want to make their own new security program the dominant program on Vista.
Would you want your computer's security completely dependent on Microsoft? Do you trust them to put out protections for viruses, worms and other intrusions as quickly as you've come to expect them from the two security leaders - McAfee, Inc.'s (NYSE: MFE) and Symantec Corp. (NASDAQ : SYMC)? Given Microsoft's history of dragging its feet on alerting you to security problems, I for one won't even consider an upgrade to Vista until McAfee and Symantec give me the green light that they can protect my computer.
Luckily, the European Commission listened to the complaints of McAfee and Symantec, and forced Microsoft to back peddle and open the kernel to security firms. The problem is that decision came too late for its end of November release. Microsoft said Thursday that it can only make this change when it updates the software at some time in the future. The big problem is that Microsoft's not giving a timetable for the update.
The only timetable for this update of kernel-control software comes from the Gartner group, which they believe won't be available to security software companies until 2008. Gartner told its clients that they should not commit to accepting the 64-bit Vista until a firm release date for the first set of kernel-control software is announced by Microsoft. Microsoft declined to endorse this recommendation. Does that surprise you?
Microsoft got caught with its pants down and simply doesn't like it. The only way it knows to behave with this embarrassing situation is to start attacking its accusers. Luckily, this time the accusers are powerful security software companies that are standing their ground for their customers and, of course, their own share of the market.
Comfort Zone Investing: Buffett buys Burlington
Six top trades for the rest of 2009
Senator Sanders proposes legislation to break up large banks
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-20-2006 @ 1:28PM
tom barta said...
No reason you have to buy Vista in 2008, either. This is the 21st century; there are other options that will cause you less pain and suffering and have MUCH lower operating costs. I am talking virus-free OSX, but even LINUX would be an improvement over Windows.
10-20-2006 @ 1:30PM
Lita Epstein said...
Very good points and I think more people will start looking at these alternatives, just as they have done with a web browser.
Lita
10-20-2006 @ 2:39PM
BOb said...
You guys are crazy. Linux is crap. Windows is crap too, but it is not as crap as all these other OSes. No one appart from geekoos use them.
10-20-2006 @ 4:14PM
Rich said...
There isn't a software package ever produced by anyone that comes out of the starting gate without problems and errors. As a major rewite of the OS, Vista will be no different. Therefore, I would strongly recommend to every current Windows user to upgrade immediately to Vista as soon as it's on the shelves, if not sooner.
10-20-2006 @ 4:23PM
Lita Epstein said...
What about the security issues though? Micrsoft has made it clear that they can't fix the kernel problem with this initial version of Vista, which means McAfee and Symantec cannot provide the level of security on Vista they do today on other Microsoft OS systems. For me, that's too much of a risk. I don't agree that any computer user should update to the latest software, if the latest software does not meet their security needs.
Lita
10-23-2006 @ 4:49AM
johnybo said...
the point is that Vista comes with its own security center. but the author here notes that perhaps we can't trust them keeping out on viruses in time, as opposed to 3rd party companies that do nothing but keep a look out on viruses.
that's all great and a viable concern. but who's to say Microsoft won't keep an eye out on viruses? Not to mention they will have a firewall and all that. I think it will be safe to bu vista, and later, for those who feel safer with mcafee or symantec, download those programs when they are compatable.
Does anyone know how this affects third party firewall programs?
10-23-2006 @ 11:58AM
robert said...
"all os come out with problems at first" true, which to me is a reason not to change to vista for awhile.
its not like xp will stop working
robert
10-25-2006 @ 12:48PM
Ben said...
Personally I don't trust Symantec to protect my PC anymore either. They have diversified their product range far too much for my taste. Everything from server side backup to client imaging to antivirus. I find it hard to consider them a "dedicated security" company any longer. I'm not saying that I would count on Microsoft to perform this task, just that Symantec isn't as good at this as it once was.